SERMON 


THE     PARABLE 


THE  RICH  MAN  AND  L.AZARUS. 


BY    THOMAS    AVIIITTEMORE, 

Paslor  of  the  First  Universalist  Socicli/  in  Cambridge. 


SECOND    EDITION. 


-••«©«■><•- 


BOSTON: 

PRINTF.D     RV    GF.ORGr    AV.    FA/IN TRUMPET    OFFICE. 

1S29. 


HUeSB  ttBMRY- 


^-noGCo^] 


A    SERMON. 

LUKE,    XVI.    19—81. 

"  There  was  a  certain  rich  man,  trhich  viu  clothed  inptirple  ondfiiw  lin- 
en, and  fared  siimjiltiinisli^  ei-cry  dai/.  .find  tliere  itas  a  certain  beg)iar 
named  fMzariis,  vhirh  was  laid  al  his  gate. fall  nf  sores,  a  nrf  desiring  to 
Ite  Jed  with  Ihe  crumbs  tvhicJt  fell  from  the  rich  man's  table  :  moreover  the 
dogs  came  and  licked  his  sores,  .ind  it  came  to  pass,  that  the  beggar  died, 
and  u-as  carried  bt/ angels  itito  ^brahant's  bosom:  the  rich  man  also  died, 
and  was  bar  led  ;  and  in  hell  he  lifted  vp  his  ci/es,  being  in  forniejits,  and 
scefh  .Abraham  nfor  off,  and  iMzarus  in  his  bosom,  .'ind  he  cried,  and 
foid,  FulJur  .niirahom,  hove  mercy  on  me,  and  send  iMzaru.f,  that  he 
■may  diji  Llie  tip  of  his  finger  m  water  and  cool  my  tongne,  for  J  am 
tormented  in  this  flame  But  Miraham  said,  son,  remember  that  thou  in 
tJny  life  time  receivcd.it  thy  good  things,  and  likewise  iMzarus  evil  things; 
but  now  lie  is  comforted,  and  thou  art  tormented.  .'Ind  besides  all  this, 
between  us  and  you  there  is  a  great  gulf  fi.ved  :  so  that  they  U'ho  v'onid 
pass  from  hence  to  you  cannot  ;  m-ilJier  can  they  pass  to  ns,  that  tr.nild 
come  from  Ihcnie.  Then  he  saiil.  I  jiiay  thee  therefore.  Father,  that  lliou 
uyjuldst  send  him  to  my  father's  hou^e :  For  I  have  five  brethren:  that 
lie  may  teslifi/  unto  them,  lest  they  also  come  into  this  place  <f  torment. 
Abraham  saiih  unto  him,  they  have  Moses  and  the  prophets  ;  let  tliem 
hear  them.  .Ind  he  said,  jYay,  father  Abralutm  ;  but  if  ont  went  unto 
them  from  the  dead,  they  will  repent.  .'ind  he  ■•<aid  vnlo  him,  (/  tiny 
hear  not  .Afoses  and  the  prophets,  neilh<:r  will  tluy  be  persuatled,  Ihuugk 
one  rose  from  the  dead." 

It  is  a  command  of  our  Lord  and  Sikiviour  that 
we  "  search  the  ScripUires"  and  of  the  A})ostle 
Paul,  that  we  "prove  all  things ;  hold  fast  that 
ivhich  is  good."  Therefore,  notwithstanding  ma- 
ny learned  and  good  men  have  advocated  the  doc- 
trine of  endless  misery,  and  adduced  the  text  as 
pi'oof  of  it,  we  cannot  receive  it  because  they  have 
believed  it,  nor  our  text  as  proof  of  it,  because  it 
has  been  used  as  such.  We  receive  no  doctrine  un- 
til we  are  conviriced  of  its  truth  by  evidence. 
Whenever  our  views  of  Christianity  agree  with 
those  of  our  bretliren  of  other  denominations,  we 
feel  no  small  degree  of  pleasure  in  making  it 
known  ;  but  we  feel  it  our  imperious  duty  openly 
to  avow  our  difference  iVom  them,  when  their  views 
seem  to  us  to  disigree  with  the  plainest  passages 
of  scripture,  and  the  simplest  dictates  of  reason. 


/    < 


That  part  of  the  scriptures  which  we  have  se- 
lected as  our  text,  is  said  by  many  to  be,  not  a  par- 
able, but  a  literal  relation  of  facts.  It  is  easy  to 
see  why  they  contend  that  this  is  not  a  parable. 
If  it  is  a  pai'able,  the  proof  it  is  supposed  to  con- 
tain of  the  doctrine  of  misery  in  a  future  state,  is 
greatly  impaired.  Those  things  which  Jesus  used 
as  figures  of  tlie  reality,  have  been  taken  for  the 
reality  itself.  A  parable  is  not  unlike  a  similitude; 
it  is  "a  relation  under  which  something  else  is  fig- 
ured." Our  Saviour  often  spake  in  parables.  "He 
spake  many  things  unto  them  in  parables."  Matt, 
xiii.  3.  So  common  a  thing  was  it  for  him  to  speak 
in  this  way,  that  Matthew  has  said,  "  without  a 
parable  spake  he  not  unto  them,"  xiii  34.  The 
most  of  you  will  recollect  the  beautiful  and  in- 
structive parable  of  the  sower,  which  our  Saviour 
himself  explained.  The  sower  went  forth  to  sow. 
"  Some  seeds  fell  by  the  way  side,  and  the  fowls 
came  and  devoured  them  up.  Some  fell  upon  stony 
})laces,  where  they  had  not  much  earth  ;  and  forth- 
with they  sprung  up  because  they  had  no  deep- 
ness of  earth ;  and  when  the  sun  was  up  they 
were  scorched  ;  and  because  they  had  no  root  they 
withered  away.  And  some  fell  among  thorns ;  and 
the  thorns  sprung  up  and  choaked  them.  But 
others  fell  into  good  ground,  "  &c.  Now  we  do 
not  think  that  a  man  actually  went  and  sowed  seed 
in  this  way.  Such  an  interpretation  would  de- 
stroy the  idea  of  a  ^flrrtWe.  The  doctrine  which 
he  meant  to  teach  was,  that  the  truth  would  be  re- 
ceived in  different  ways  by  different  people,  and 
that  it  would  produce  different  effects.  See  his  ex- 
planation of  this  parable,  Matt.  xiii.  18 — 23.  We 
think  that  the  text  is  a  parable.  The  evidence  of 
this,  which  we  shall  lay  before  you,  is  to  us  irresis- 
table.  But  before  we  introduce  this  part  of  our 
subject,  we  will,  for  a  moment,  allow  the  text  to 
be  a  literal  relation  of  facts  ;  and  we  will  inquire 
whether,  allowing  this,  it  will  prove  either  of  the 
two  great  doctriut'&  advocated  by  christians  in  gen- 


eral.  One  of  these  doctrines  is  believed  by  Cal- 
vinists,  viz.  that  God  elected  to  his  llivor  belorethe 
world  was  created,  those  who  will  finally  be  saved; 
and  that  he  repi'obated  to  his  eternal  ire  all  the 
rest  of  mankind.  What  does  the  text  contain  in 
favor  of  this  doctrine  ?  What  do  we  find  in  it 
about  election  and  reprobation  ?  Are  Ave  inform- 
ed that  the  rich  man  was  reprobated  to  God's  eter- 
nal wrath  7  Or  that  God  hated  him  1  Or  that 
he  loved  Abraham,  or  Lazarus  more  than  him  ? 
Are  we  informed  that  Lazarus  was  elected  to  God's 
peculiar  favor ']  I  cannot  see  one  word  in  the  text 
in  favor  of  the  notion,  either  of  election  or  repro- 
bation. How  then  does  it  afford  this  doctrine  any 
proof?  How  can  it  prove  that  concerning  which 
it  does  not  contain  even  a  reference  ? 

The  other  doctrine  to  which  I  alluded,  is,  that 
mankind  will  be  punished  and  rewarded  in  the 
future  state  for  the  vices  and  virtues  of  this  world. 
What  does  the  text,  understanding-  it  literally, 
contain  in  favor  of  this  doctrine  ?  We  read  that 
the  rich  man  was  in  torments  in  hades  ;  but  not 
because  he  had  been  wicked  :  and  we  read  that 
the  beggar  was  happy  ;  but  not  because  he  had 
been  good.  I  see  no  evidence,  in  the  text,  that  the 
rich  man  was  a  very  bad  man,  or  that  the  beggar 
was  better  than  he.  We  are  not  informed  that  the 
former  obtained  his  riches  improperly,  or  that  the 
beggar  did  not  become  poor  by  his  OAvn  negligence 
or  imprudence.  Is  it  a  sin  to  be  rich  ?  Is  it  a  vir- 
tue to  be  poor  ?  It  has  been  alleged  against  the 
rich  man,  that  he  refused  Lazarus  the  crumbs  which 
fell  from  his  table.  If  this  be  a  fact,  why  did  Laz- 
arus lay  at  his  gate  ?  We  should  judge  by  the  ac- 
count, that  some  persons,  through  compassion, 
perhaps  the  friends  of  the  beggar,  carried  him  to 
the  rich  man's  gate,  and  laid  him  there.  Would 
they  have  done  this,  had  they  known  him  to  be 
covetous?  Of  all  places  the  rich  man's  gate  was 
selected  as  tlie  most  proper  lor  the  jjoor  man  to  lay 
at.     Besides,  the  word  translated   deniring  in   the 


account,  is  sometimes  rendered  delighting.*  And 
if  we  read  that  the  beggar  delighted  to  be  fed  with 
the  crumbs,  is  not  this  a  proof  that  he  was  not  de- 
nied them  ?  How  then  will  the  text  prove  that 
men  Avill  be  punished  in  the  future  state  because 
they  are  sinful  in  this  world  ?  I  repeat,  I  see  no 
evidence  that  the  rich  man  was  a  bad  man.  The 
prayer  which  he  ofi'ered  to  Abraham  is  a  manifesta- 
tion of  a  good  spirit.  How  much  better  could 
Lazarus  or  Abraham  have  prayed,  had  either  been 
in  the  rich  man's  situation  ?  The  rich  man  prayed 
that  his  five  brethren  might  be  warned,  and  ])re- 
vented  from  coming  to  that  place  of  torment. 
Abraham  seems  at  one  time  to  be  accounting  for 
the  rich  man's  torment:  but  he  sa3s nothing  about 
any  previous  wickedness  in  him.  "  Abraham  said. 
Son,  remember  that  thou  in  thy  life  time  re- 
ceivedst  thy  good  things,  and  likewise  Lazarus  evil 
things  :  but  now  he  is  comforted  and  thou  art  tor- 
mented." He  did  not  say,  remember  thou  in  thy 
life  time  wast  wicked,  but  Lazarus  good. 

Another  inquiry  properly  coming  before  us  is, 
does  not  the  literal  sense  of  the  text  pointedly  dis- 
agree with  the  notions  of  those  who  contend  that 
it  is  not  a  parable  ?  We  often  hear  that  those  who 
go  to  hell  never  have  one  holy  feeling  ;  no  desire 
for  the  company  of  the  blessed  ;  that  they  spend 
their  time  in  blaspheming  God.      Was   it  so  with 

■'The  word  here  rendered  dcsiriiis;  is  rpillrjmon.  Of  this  word  Parkhurst 
says,  that,  written  witli  an  infinitive  following,  it  signifies  "  to  be  eonlcnl, 
or  glad,  to  estctm  it  a  great  iiiiitler  ;  "  and  he  adduees  the  instance  in  the 
)iarable  before  us,  of  its  occurring  in  tliis  sense.  To  which  he  adds,  "  thus 
Eisner  on  Luke  xvi.  21,  explains  it,  and  observes  not  only  that  the  LXX. 
have  so  applied  it,  Isa.  Iviii.  2,  but  that  Lysias  has  used  it  in  a  like  sense,  O- 
rat.  2-4.  Dr.  Campbell  says,  "  1  agree  with  those  who  do  not  tliink  tlierc  is 
any  foundation,  in  this  c.\prcs.sion,  for  saying  that  he  was  refused  the  crumbs. 
When  the  historian  says,  that  he  was  laid  at  the  rich  man's  gate,  ho  means 
not,  surel}',  that  he  was  once  there,  but  tliat  ho  was  usually  so  jilaeed,  which 
would  not  probably  have  hap|icncd,  if  he  had  got  nothing  at  all.  The  otlicr 
circumstances  concur  in  licightening  the  probability.  Such  arc,  the  rich 
man's  immediately  knowing  him,  his  asking  that  he  might  be  made  the  in- 
strument of  the  relief  wanted  ;  and,  let  mo  add  this,  that  though  the  I'atri- 
arcli  upbraids  the  rich  man  with  the  carelessness  and  lu.xury  in  which  ho 
had  lived,  he  says  not  a  word  of  inhumanity  ;  yet,  if  we  consider  Lazarus  as 
having  experienced  it  so  recently,  it  could  hardly,  on  this  occasion,  have 
failed  to  be  taken  notice  of  C:ui  we  suppose  that  Abraham,  in  the  charge 
lie  brought  against  him,  would  have  mentioned  only  the  things  of  least  mo- 
ment, and  omitted  those  of  the  greateai  ?"     Note  on  Luke  xvi.  2J. 


7 

the  rich  man  ?  Do  we  read  of  his  l)hTsphemin,af 
God?  No  ;  but  we  read  of  his  ottering  up  a  pray- 
er, and  a  very  good  one  too.  "  I  pray  thee  there- 
fore, father,"  said  he, "  that  thou  wouklst  send  him 
(Lazarus)  to  my  father's  house  :  for  I  have  five 
brethren  ;  that  he  may  testify  unto  them,  lest  they 
also  come  into  this  place  of  torment."  Did  he  not  in 
this  language  breathe  forth  a  good  desire  ?  Did 
he  not  have  a  holy  feeling  ?  Abraham,  when 
speaking  of  the  great  gulf,  said  it  was  fixed  "  so 
that  they  who  would  pass  from  hence  to  you  can- 
not :  neither  can  they  pass  to  us  that  would  come 
from  thence."  Here  two  things  should  be  noticed. 
1.  There  were  some  with  Abraham  that  would  go 
to  the  rich  man  ;  but  could  not.  And,  2.  There 
were  some  with  the  rich  man  who  would  go  to 
Abraham  ;  but  could  not.  It  appears  from  this, 
that  there  were  some  in  hell  who  had  a  desire  for 
the  company  of  the  blessed,  and  would  have  gone 
to  them,  had  it  been  in  their  power.  And  we  learn, 
furthermore,  that  hell  cannot  be  so  dreadfully  hot 
a  place  as  it  has  been  represented  to  be.  For  if 
this  were  so,  the  rich  man  we  should  think  would 
have  called  for  more  water  than  Lazarus  could 
have  carried  on  the  tip  of  his  finger.  And  sup- 
pose the  common  idea  of  a  devil  be  correct,  how 
would  he  be  pleased  to  have  so  benevolent  a  pray- 
er as  that  of  the  rich  man,  offered  up  in  his  dark 
dominions  ?  The  literal  sense  of  the  text  disagrees 
very  much  with  many  people's  notions  of  a  future 
world. 

Now  let  us  turn  to  Abraham  and  those  with  him. 
It  is  commonly  supposed  that  those  who  are  in 
heaven  are  serenely  happy,  and  perfectly  reconci- 
led to  the  will  of  God.  We  have  already  shown 
that  there  were  some  in  the  place  of  happiness 
who  would  go  to  the  rich  man  ;  but  could  not. 
They  were  not,  therefore,  perfectly  happy,  inas- 
much as  they  were  desirous  of  doing  that  which 
they  were  not  permitted  to  do.  Neither  were 
they  reconciled  to  the  will  of  God  ;  for  it  was  the 


will  of  Goil  that  they  shoiilcl  not  go,  and  he  had 
made  the  great  gulf  to  prevent  them.  Wishing  to 
do  what  was  not  permitted  to  be  done,  they  were 
unhappy,  and  being  unreconciled  to  God,  the}' 
were  wicked.  If  wicked,  they  must  have  been 
miserable.  So  we  have  one  argument  to  prove 
that  those  who  were  with  Abraham  were  wicked, 
and  two  that  they  were  miserable.  How  Avill 
these  things  agree  with  the  opinions  of  those  who 
contend  that  the  text  is  a  literal  relation  of  facts  ? 
Those  who  were  in  heaven  were  unreconciled  to 
God,  and  those  who  were  in  hell  were  unreconci- 
led to  the  devil.  How  can  the  text  be  explained 
literally  by  our  opposers,  and  they  maintain  also 
their  present  notions  ? 

But  it  may  be  said,  those  in  heaven  were  benev- 
olent, sympathetic,  and  were  urged  by  good  mo- 
tives to  endeavor  to  relieve  the  distressed.  But  I 
ask,  how  could  they  be  ignorant  of  God's  deter- 
mination to  punish  the  Avicked  eternally  ?  And 
will  it  be  said,  they  were  better  than  God  ?  Was 
not  he  as  good,  sympathetic  and  benevolent  as 
they  ?  Let  those  Avho  interpret  the  text  literally 
consider  these  things.  Let  them  tell  us  Avhy  those 
in  heaven  wished  to  go  down  to  hell.  Was  it  to 
abide  there?  Was  it  to  relieve  some  friend, some 
relation?  Would  some  parent  comfort  his  child ? 
Some  child,  its  parent  ?  Some  brother,  a  sister  7 
Some  husband,  a  wife  ?  No,  answer  the  orthodox, 
the  saints  say  Amen,  alleluia,  when  they  see  the 
smoke  of  the  wicked's  torment  ascend.  How  will 
those  who  do  not  allow  that  the  text  is  a  parable, 
surmount  these  difficulties  ? 

Now  allowing  the  text  to  be  a  literal  relation, 
what  will  it  prove  ?  It  will  not  prove  the  doctrine 
of  election  and  reprobation ;  it  will  not  prove  that 
men  are  to  be  punished  or  rcivarded  in  the  next  life 
for  their  conduct  in  this  ;  but  it  will  prove  that  there 
was  a  man  tormented  in  hades,  who  was  a  good  man 
in  some  respects,  and  for  aught  we  know,  as  good 
as  any  body  else  ;  it  will  prove  that  those  who  are 


f  9 

in  heaven  are  both  wicked  and  miserable,  that  they 
wish  to  leave  the  place  and  go  to  hell ;  and  it  will 
prove  that  some  notions  which  orthodox  people 
have  entertained  for  j  ears,  are  totally  erroneous. 
Those  who  contend  that  it  is  not  a  parable,  for  any 
thing  I  see,  must  allow  all  these  things. 

But  the  hearer  will  say,  that  the  text,  understood 
literally,  proves  that  men  will  be  punished  after 
death.  I  answer,  if  we  interpret  it  literally,  and 
suppose  the  death  of  the  rich  man  to  mean  the  de- 
parture of  life  from  his  animal  frame,  then  it  will 
teach  that  one  man  was  tormented  in  another  state 
of  being  ;  but  whether  it  should  be  for  one  year, 
one  day  or  hour,  we  could  not  tell.  One  thing  is 
certain,  it  would  not  then  prove  the  doctrine  of 
endless  torment,  because  the  place,  the  hell  in  which 
the  rich  man  was  tormented  is  to  be  destroyed,  ac- 
cording to  the  testimony  of  Hosea,  "  O  hades,  J 
ivill  be  thy  destruction,"  (Hos.  xiii.  14.)  and  of 
John,  "And  death  andhades  tvere  cast  into  the  lake 
of  Jire,"  (Rev.  xx.  14,)  and  of  Paul,  "  O  hades 
7vhere  is  thy  victory,  (1  Cor.  xv.  55.)  But  if  I  may 
have  the  liberty  of  interpreting  parables  literally, 
I  will  engage  to  prove  you  almost  any  thing. 
There  is  no  intelligent  christian  who  does  not 
know  that  those  thinos  which  Jesus  used  as  fiijures 
of  the  reality,  should  not  be  considered  the  reality 
itself. 

There  is  sufficient  evidence,  both  internal  and 
external,  to  prove  that  the  text  is  a  parable.  We 
will  briefly  examine  the  internal  first.  It  is  stated 
in  the  text  that  the  beggar  was  carried  by  angels 
into  Abraham's  bosom.  Now  I  ask,  can  any  one 
suppose  that  celestial  beings  actually,  really  carri- 
ed a  poor  beggar  and  put  liim  into  the  bosom  of 
the  patriarch  Abraham  ?  No  ;  you  say,  this  is  a 
representation  of  heaven.  Now  you  have  inter- 
preted the  text  as  a  paral)le  yourselves.  And  per- 
mit me  to  remark,  tliat  I  have  all  tlie  right  to  in- 
terpret the  whole  text  parabolically  that  you  have 
to  interpret  any  part  of  it  so.     You  will  see  that 


10  ^ 

llicse  people  are  represented  as  having  bodily  or- 
gans and  powers  with  them.  The  rich  man  had 
eyes  and  a  tongue,  and  Lazarus  fingers.  Can  this 
be  interpreted  literally  ?  Do  disembodied  spii-its 
in  the  Avorld  to  come  have  eyes,  and  tongues,  and 
fingers,  and  the  powers  of  speech,  of  hearing  and 
of  seeing  ?  We  do  not  profess  to  know  much  about 
spirits  in  another  world,  but  we  believe  this  is  not 
the  common  opinion  upon  the  subject.  HoAvever, 
it  belongs  to  those  who  say  the  text  is  not  a  para- 
l)le,  to  show  how  this  can  be,  to  give  some  proof 
upon  the  subject ;  and  to  shew  us  how  people 
in  heaven  and  hell  can  converse  with  apparent 
ease  from  one  place  to  the  other. 

The  external  evidence  that  the  text  is  a  parable 
is  the  connexion  in  which  it  is  found.  We  should 
maintain  a  proper  connexion  throughout  our  LQrd's 
discourse.  I  see  no  way  to  do  this,  if  we  do  not 
consider  the  text  to  be  a  parable.  It  is  found  con- 
nected with  a  number  of  parables,  in  Luke  xv. 
and  xvi. 

In  the  beginning  of  the  15th  chapter,  we  find  a 
murmur  which  the  scribes  and  Pharisees  expressed, 
because  Jesus  received  sinners  and  ate  with  them. 
In  the  three  parables  which  fill  up  the  remainder 
of  this  chapter,  viz.  that  of  the  lost  sheep,  lo§t 
pieces  of  silver,  and  prodigal  son,  Jesus  vindica- 
ted that  part  of  his  conduct  of  which  they  had 
complained.  But  in  the  last  of  these  three  para- 
bles, a  character  Avas  presented  which  had  not  a})- 
poared  in  either  of  the  others.  This  was  the  elder 
brother  of  the  prodigal,  who  was  angry  because  the 
prodigal  was  received  into  favor,  and  who  very 
justly  represented  the  scribes  and  Pharisees ;  for 
they  murmured  because  Jesus  Christ  received  sin- 
ners and  ate  with  them.  These  Pharisees  rejected 
the  gospel ;  and  this  is  represented  b}'  the  elder 
brother's  refusing  to  go  into  his  father's  house.  In 
the  parable  of  the  unjust  steward  witli  wliich  the 
IGth  chapter  is  commenced,  the  same  people  are 
admonished  for  not  makinaf  such  ijnprovement  of 


''^. 


11 


the  laAV,  as  would  introduce  them  into  the  christian 
fkitli  and  church.  The  Pharisees  being  provoked 
at  this,  derided  Jesus.  After  briefly  describing  to 
tliem  tlieir  con.duct,  he  sa}  s,  "  the  law  and  the  pro- 
phets were  until  John  :  since  that  time  the  king- 
dom of  God  is  preached,  and  every  man  presselh 
into  it."  Jesus  then  spake  another  parable,  in 
which  the  folly  pf  the  Jews,  in  rejecting  the 
gospel  and  adhering  to  the  law^  is  represented  by 
the  sin  of  adultery.  Then  come  the  words  of  the 
text ;  "  There  was  a  certain  rich  man,"  Sec.  AVhat 
is  there  in  all  this  connexion  which  would  have 
the  least  tendency  to  lead  the  mind  to  such  doc- 
trine as  that  which  the  text  is  used  to  support  ? — 
It  has  been  justly  said,  "  To  suppose  that  he  avIio 
spake  as  never  man  spake,.  abru])tly  tiro})ped  the 
subject  of  the  end  of  the  law  dispensation,  and  the 
intisoduction  of  the  gospel,  or  kingdom  of  heaven, 
and  having  no  further  allusion  to  this  subject,  pro- 
ceeded to  give  an  account  of  the  sin  of  adultery, 
which  account  occupies  but  one  verse,  and  then 
again  flies  directly  from  this  subject,  to  give  a  lit- 
eral account  about  a  rich  man  and  a  beggar,  in  this 
world  and  in  an  eternal  state,  is  so  unwarrantable, 
and  so  derogatory  to  the  character  of  the  divine 
orator,  that  it  is  a  matter  of  wonder  tliat  such  an 
opinion  should  ever  have  been  honored  with  the 
consent  of  learned  commentators."     Ballou. 

Having  shown,  as  I  think,  that  the  text  is  a  para- 
ble, I  shall  now  proceed  to  show  you  the  true  mean- 
ing of  the  word  hades  ;  why  our  Lord  spake  of  it 
as  a  place  of  torment ;  and  why  he  used  it  figura- 
tivel}  ,  as  he  undoubtedly  did  in  the  text.  Hades 
is  the  Avord  rendei-ed  hell.*  Its  literal  meaning  is 
not  a  place  of  torment  in  another  world  :  but  the 
state  of  the  dead  in  general,  without  regard  to  the 

*Thero  are  four  words  rendered  hell  in  the  scriptures,  viz.  Slicol,  Hndes, 
Tarlaiu»,  and  Uiluana.  Slirol,  being  Hebrew,  occurs  only  in  the  Old  Tcs- , 
lament.  Of  the  l>4  instances  in  which  it  is  I'ound,  in  ^'i  it  is  rendered  hell, 
and  in  the  remaining  32  pit  and  grave,  lladea  occurs  11  times,  in  HI  orwiiicli 
it  is  rendered  licll,  and  once  (1  Cor.  xv.  5.j)  grave.  Tartarus  occurs  but  onco 
(2  Teter  ii.  4.)     Gehenna  ia  found  13  times,  and  is  uniformly  lenUerod  liell. 


12 

goodness  or  badness  of  persons,  their  hj^piness  or 
misery.  This  was  the  meaning  of  the  Hebrew 
word  Sheol,  which  the  LXX  have  almost  invaria- 
bly rendered  hades.  All  men  go  down  to  hades  at 
death,  where  they  remain  till  the  resurrection.  It 
is  said  in  the  scripture  that  our  Saviour's  soul  was 
in  hell,  hades.  Not  in  a  place  of  torment;  but  in 
t!ie  state  of  the  dead,  the  grave.  But  it  did  not 
remain,  for  he  rose  from  the  dead.  See  Acts  ii.  27. 
In  the  Improved  Version,  the  place  where  the 
rich  man  was,  is  called  "  the  unseen  state,"  and  in 
AV^dcefield's  translation,  "  the  grave."  These  are 
their  definitions  of  hades.  Wakefield  says,  in  his 
note  on  this  place,  "  It  must  be  remembered  that 
hades  no  where  means  hell,  gchenna,  in  any  author 
whatsoever,  sacred  or  profane  ;  and  also  that  our 
Lord  is  giving  his  hearers  a  parable,  (Matt.  xiii. 
34,)  and  not  a  piece  of  real  history.  To  them  who 
regard  the  narration  as  exhibiting  a  realUy,  it  must 
stand  as  an  unanswerable  argument  for  the  purga- 
tory of  the  Papists.  The  universal  meaning  of 
hades  is  the  state  of  death."  Whitby,  who  was  far- 
ther from  being  a  Universalist  than  Wakefield, 
says,  Sheol  throughout  the  Old  Testament,  and 
Hades  in  the  Septuagint,  answering  to  it,  signify 
not  the  place  of  punishment,  or  of  the  souls  of  bad 
men  only,  but  the  grave  only,  or  the  place  of  death." 
He  says,  Hades  is  the  place — "  Whither  toe  are  all 
going."  Old  Jacob  went  there  ;  Job  desired,  yea 
prayed  to  go  there  ;  Hezekiah  expected  to  be 
there,  for  he  said  "  I  shall  go  to  the  gates  of  Hades." 
Whitby  further  says,  "  The  ancient  Greeks  assign- 
ed one  Hades  to  all  that  died,  and  therefore  say. 
Hades  receives  all  mortal  men  together,  all  men  shall 
go  to  hades."  Dr.  Campbell,  a  believer  of  the 
doctrine  of  endless  misery,  gives  us  the  same  ac- 
count of  hades.  This  then  is  what  we  must  under- 
stand the  word  hell  to  mean,  when  it  stands  for 
hades,  a  place  to  which  all  men  go,  good  and  bad. 
We  must  not,  when  we  contemplate  it,  look  for- 
ward beyond  the  resurrection.     All  men  will  be 


) 


13 

raised  fToni  hades  to  incorruptioii  and  iiniuortality. 
Then  hiules  will  be  destroyed.     Our  word  hell,  in 
its   original  signification,   perfectly   corresponded 
to  the  definition  we  have  given  of  Hades.     Now 
it  does  not  ;  with   christians   generally   here,   its 
meaning  soniehoAV  has  been  changed  :  but  we   are 
informed,  I  believe  b}^   Dr.  Doddridge,  that   the 
original  sense  of  the  word  hell  is  now  retained  in 
the  eastern,  and  especially  in  the  western  counties 
of  England ;  w  here  to  hclc  over  a  thing  is  to  cover 
it.     Hence  says  Dr.  Campbell,  "  it    (hades)  ought 
never  in  the  scripture  to  be  rendered  hell,   at  least  in 
the  sense  lohercin  that  loord  is  noto  univer sally  under- 
stood by  christians."     He  says  that  w  ith  the  mean- 
ing of  hades,  "  the  word  hell,  in  its  primitive  signi- 
fication, perfectly  corresponded.     For,    at  first,    it 
denoted  only  what  was  secret  or  concealed."    The 
rich  man,  and  the  beggar,  and  Abraham,  were  all 
represented  as  being  in   hades   together.     We  do 
not  read  in  the  text  that  one  was  in   hell,  but  the 
other  two  in  heaven.      This  differs   materially,  I 
know,  from  the  common  opinion  on   this  subject ; 
but  I  see  no  way  to  avoid  it.   The  text  says  not  one 
word  to  the  contrary.     Nay,  it  rather  favours  the 
idea.     For  otherwise,  how  could  the  rich  man  see 
Abraham  and  Lazarus  ?  How  could    he  converse 
with  Abraham,  and  how  could  Abraham  hear  him  ? 
As  we  have  proved  l)y  the  most  respectable,  or- 
thodox authoritv,  that  the  literal  and  orioinal  mean- 
ing  of  hades  is  the  same  as  the  Hebrew  sheol,  sig- 
nifying the  state  of  the  dead  in  general,  the  place 
whither  we  all  go,  whether  good  or  bad,  it  remains 
for  me  to  shew  why  our  Loi-d  spake  of  it  as  a  place 
of  torment.      Let  it  be  then   remembered,   that 
when  our  Lord  was  upon  the  earth,  the  minds  of 
the  Jews  had  changed  with  regard  to  hades;  they 
entertained  different  views  of  it  from   those  they 
imbibed  by  reading  the  Old  Testament.  They  had 
lie  viated  from  that  sense  in  which  the  sacred  writers 
had  used  it ;  and    thought  that  ghosts  of  departed 
men   would  be    punished   there.     They  did  not 


14 


Mai)! 


think  that  all  who  went  there  would  be  uMa])j)y 
for  they  sui)i)osed  it  was  divided  into  dillerent  parts, 
for  ghosts  of  different  characters.  That  they  did 
not  learn  this  idea  from  the  Old  Testament,  is  suf- 
ficiently obvious  ;  lor  no  such  idea  is  there.  Dr. 
Campbell  says,  "  It  is  plain,  that  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, the  most  profound  silence  is  observed  in  re- 
gard to  the  state  of  the  deceased,  their  joys,  or  sor- 
rows, happiness  or  misery."  They  could  not  have 
learned  it  from  the  New  Testament ;  for  this  was 
not  then  written.  Where  then  did  tliey  learn  it? 
Answer,  From  the  idolatrous,  heathen  nations 
around  diem.  In  support  of  this  I  shall  read  you 
a  quotation  from  the  learned  author  just  named.  He 
tlius  writes,  Dis.  vi.  Part  2,  Sect.  19.  "  But  the 
o}»inions  neither  of  Hebrews  nor  of  heathen,  re- 
mained invariably  the  same.  And  from  the  time 
of  the  captivity,  more  especially  from  the  time  of 
the  subjection  of  the  Jews,  first  to  the  Macedonian 
empire,  and  afterwards  to  the  Roman;  as  they  had 
a  closer  intercourse  with  pagans,  they  insensibly 
imbibed  many  of  their  sentiments,  particularly  on 
those  subjects,  Avhereon  their  law  was  silent,  and 
wherein  by  consequence,  they  considered  them- 
selves as  at  greater  freedom.  On  this  subject  of  a 
future  state,  we  find  a  considerable  difference  in 
the  popular  opinions  of  the  Jews  in  our  Saviour's 
time,  from  those  which  prevailed  in  the  days  of  the 
ancient  prophets.  As  both  Greeks  and  Romans 
had  adopted  the  notion,  that  the  ghosts  of  the  de- 
parted were  susceptible  both  of  enjoyment  and  of 
suffering,  they  were  led  to  suppose  a  sort  of  retri- 
bution in  that  state,  for  their  merit  or  demerit  in 
the  present.  The  Jews  did  not  indeed  adopt  the 
pagan  fables  on  this  sulyect,  nor  did  they  express 
themselves  entirely  in  the  same  manner  ;  but  the 
general  train  of  thinking  in  both  came  pretty  much 
to  coincide.  The  Greek  JIadcs  they  found  well 
adaj)ted  to  express  the  Hebrew  Shcol.  This  they 
came  to  conceive  as  including  different  sorts  of  habi- 
tations for  ghosts  of  different   characters."     Here 


15 

Ave  have  our  question   answered.     On  wliosc  au- 
thority (lid  the  Jews  l)elieve  that  Hades  was  a  ])lare 
of  punishment  ?    Ans.  On  the    authority    of   the 
heathen.     Dr.    Campbell   says,    "they  insensibly 
imbibed  many  of  their  sentiments,  ])articularly  on 
those    subjects  whereon  their  law  was  silent,  and 
wherein,  by  consequence,  they  thou<i;ht  themselves 
as  at  greater  freedom.     On  this  subject  of  a  futtpre 
state,  wcjind  a  considerable  difference  in  the  popular 
opinions   of  the  Jews  in  our  Saviour^s   time,  from 
those  udiich  prevailed  in  the  days  of  the  ancient  pro- 
phets."    "  The  general  train  of  thinking,"  says  he, 
"  in  both  (i.  e.  Jews  and   heathen)    came   pretty 
much  to  coincide."     Now  I  seriously  l)elieve  that 
it  was  to  this  opinion,  that  hades  was   divided  into 
different   habitations,    peopled  by    good  and    bad 
spirits,  that  our  Lord  alluded  in  the  text.     Hence, 
both  Abraham  and  the  rich  man   are  represented 
as  being  in  one  place,  divided  into  different  apart- 
ments by  the  great  gulph.     The  Jews  were  tena- 
cious of  these  ideas ;  and  our  Lord  used  them  as 
figures  of  an   important  truth.     And   the   reason 
why  he  spake  in  parables   generally,  may  be  ren- 
dered why  he  spake  parabolically  in  the  text.     He 
did  not  allude  to  their  doctrine  to  recognize  it  as 
truth ;  no,  and  all  the  evidence  we  find  in  the  text 
of  the  truth  of  heathen    notions  concerning  hades 
is,  that  he  used  them  as  a  similitude.     In  the  para- 
ble of  the  sower,  to  which  we  have  before  alluded, 
Jesus  used  natural  things  as  similitudes  of  spiritual. 
We  do  not  understand  the  figures  as  realities  here, 
and  we  should  not  in  the  text.*     What  intelligent 
person  would  infer  from  reading  this  parable,  that 
a  man  actually  went  and  sowed  seed,  some  by  the 
way  side,  some  upon  stony  places,  and  some  among 
thorns?  Have  we  not  proved  that  the  text  is  a  para- 
ble 7     Have  we  not  shown  that  literally  it  proves 


»If  there  are  any  wlio  iliink  that  no  parable,  in  its  literal  sens,->,  is  imponsi- 
h\e,  and  Ihnt  Jesus  would  not  have  used,  even  in  fiifure,  what  is  untrue  in  it- 
self, let  tlicm  consult  .Iiul"nsix.  8 — 15. 


16 

a  doctrine  which  nobody  believes?  I  ask  then, 
by  what  just  rule  of  interpretation  this  can  be  said 
to  prove  the  doctrine  of  a  future  state  of  punish- 
ment ?  We  have  the  opinion  of  the  learned  that 
this  is  a  parable  ;  we  see  nothing  to  prove  it  is  not ; 
and  we  then  demand,  why  we  should  not  adopt  the 
same  rules  in  explaining  it  that  we  do  in  ex- 
plaining other  parables?  Parables,  we  all  know, 
are  figurative  language.  The  truth  taught  is  to  be 
sought  under  the  figure. 

If  the  text  be  not  a  parable,  it  should  be  inter- 
preted literally  throughout.  But  this  cannot  be 
done,  as  we  think  we  have  shown.  We,  in  this 
way,  must  receive  the  heathen's  notions  of  hades  ; 
we  must  consider  Abraham  and  Lazarus  in  hellj  as 
Avell  as  the  rich  man,  and  this  too  with  their  bodies, 
with  the  senses  of  seeing,  hearing,  &c.  &c.  Who 
is  prepared  to  admit  this  ?  Let  it  be  then  distinct- 
ly understood,  that  it  is  our  opinion,  Jesus  used 
those  views  of  hades  parabolically,  Avhich  the  Jews 
had  received  of  the  heathen.  He  did  not  use  them 
to  recognise  them  as  realities,  any  more  than  he 
did  the  figures  and   imagery  of  his  other  parables. 

It  has  been  justly  remarked,  that  if  Jesus  had 
meant  to  teach  that  hades  was  a  place  of  punish- 
ment, he  would  have  stated  it  plainly  once  at  least. 
This  he  did  not  do.  He  hints  it  only,  and  then  in 
a  parable.  And  Ave  should  think  if  the  Apostles 
had  understood  him  as  teaching  that  hades  w.is  a 
place  of  punishment,  they  would  have  preached  it 
as  such.  This  thoy  never  did.  They  spake  of 
hades,  but  not  as  a  place  of  punishment,  or  torment. 
Peter  said,  that  Christ's  soul  Avas  there;  not  in  a 
place  of  torment,  but  in  the  state  of  the  dead. — 
These  facts  Aveigh  so  heavily  on  our  minds  that  Ave 
esteem  it  unnecessary  to  say  more,  until  some  one 
shall  attempt  to  shcAV  that  the  text  is  not  a  parable ; 
and  to  invalidate  the  evidence  Ave  have  given  that 
it  is.  AVhen  any  man  feels  disposed  to  contend 
for  heathen  notions  of  hades,  as  a  doctrine  of  christi- 


17 

ianity,  we  will  then  meet  him  in  a  proper  way, 
and  discuss  the  question  concerning  the  higher  or- 
igin of  Cliristianity. 

We  will  now  endeavor  to  show  what  our  Saviour 
meant  by  the  parable.  But  here  Ave  should  again 
consult  the  connexion.  Just  before  he  spake  the 
parable,  he  said,  "  the  law  and  the  prophets  loere 
until  John  :  since  that  time  the  kingdom  of  God  is 
preached,  and  every  man  prcsseth  into  it."  Here 
notice,  that  when  Jesus  spake  these  words,  the  law 
dispensation  was  ended  ;  for  that  was  "  until  Johi" 
only:  "  since  that  time,"  says  Christ,  "  the  kingdom 
of  God  (the  gospel  dispensation)  is  preached."  "  It 
is  easier  for  heaven  and  earth  to  pass,  than  one  tittle 
of  the  law  to  fail."  By  this  we  learn  that  the  law 
could  not  pass  away,  without  being  fulfilled.  We 
now  come  to  the  parable  concerning  adultery ,which 
reads  as  follows:  "  Whosoever  putteth  away  his 
wife,  and  marrieth  another,  committeth  adultery  : 
and  whosoever  marrieth  her  that  is  put  away  from 
her  husband,  committeth  adultery."  If  the  Jews 
had  put  away  the  law,  and  married  another  cov- 
enant before  John  came,  they,  in  a  parabolic  sense, 
would  have  committed  adultery.  For  infinite  wis- 
dom ordained  that  the  law  should  remain  "  until 
John,"  And  it  ordained  that  it  should  remain  no 
longer.  For  "  since  that  time  the  kingdom  of  God 
is  preached."  The  law  was  put  away ;  it  was  ful- 
filled ;  "  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law  "  ;  he  came 
to  close  the  first  dispensation,  and  introduce  the 
gospel.  The  Jews,  bj-  rejecting  the  gospel,  and 
adhering  to  the  law,  committed  adultery,  as  would 
a  man  Avho  should  marry  a  woman  that  had  been 
put  away  by  her  husljand.  The  parable  upon 
which  we  are  now  discoursing  immediately  follows. 
"  There  was  a  certain  rich  man,"  &c.  The  same 
su])ject  is  continued  through  the  chapter.  In  the 
text,  the  state  of  the  Jews,  after  the  kingdom  of 
God  had  been  taken  from  them  and  given  to  a  na- 
tion bringing  forth  the  fruits  thereof,  is  beautifully 
figured  in  the  description  of  the  rich  man's  circum- 


18 

stances.  I  feel  sensible  that  in  the  explanation  of 
parables,  too  many  have  indulged  themselves  in 
the  exercise  of  a  flying  fancy.  We  should  inter- 
pret scripture  by  the  help  of  scripture.  I  trust 
that  without  indulging  in  fancy,  we  can  obtain 
the  meaning  of  our  Saviour  in  the  text. 

By  the  rich  man  the  house  of  Israel  is  represent- 
ed. They  are  frequently  spoken  of  under  the  fig- 
ure of  an  individual  in  the  scriptures.  God  said 
by  Hosea,  "  When  Israel  tvas  a  child,  then  I  loved 
him,  and  called  my  son  out  of  Egypt."  Hosea  xi.  1. 
"  So  the  Lord  alone  did  lead  him,  (the  house  of 
Israel)  and  there  was  no  strange  god  with  him. 
He  made  him  ride  on  the  high  places  of  the  earth, 
that  he  might  eat  the  increase  of  the  fields ;  and  he 
made  him  to  suck  honey  out  of  the  rock,  and  oil 
out  of  the  flinty  rock."  Deut.  xxxii.  12, 13.  These 
are  sufficient  to  shew  that  the  posterity  of  Abra- 
ham are  spoken  of  in  the  scriptures  in  the  charac- 
ter of  an  individual. 

This  man  was  rich.     "  There  was  a  certain  rich 
man."     He  was  blessed  with  a  land   flowing  with 
milk  and  honey.     He  had   advantage  every  way, 
chiefly  because  unto  him  was  committed  the  oracles 
of  God.     In  Rom.  ix.  4,  5,  we  have  in  detail  an  ac- 
count of  this  man's  riches.     "  Who  are  Israelites  ; 
to  whom  pertaineth  the   adoption,   and  the   glory, 
and  the  covenants,  and  the   giving  of  the  law,  and 
the  service  of  God,  and  the  promises;  whose  are  the 
fathers,  and  of  whom,  as  concerning  the  flesh,  Christ 
came,   who  is  over  all,  God  blessed  forever,  Amen." 
This  man  was  clothed  in  ''purple  and  fine  linen." 
So  Israel  is  represented  in  the  scriptures  as  being 
clad.     "  I  clothed  thee  also  with   broidered  work, 
and  shod  thee  with  badger's  skin,  and  I  girded  thoe 
about  viii\\  fine  linen,  and  I  covered  thee  with  silk. 
Thus  wast  thou  decked  with  gold  and  silver,  and 
thy  raiment  wast  oi  fine  linen,  and  silk,  and  broider- 
ed  work,."     Ezck.    xvi.    10—13.     "  And   of  the 
blue,  and  purple,  and  scarlet,  they  made  clothes  of 
service,  to  do  service  in  the  holy  place,  and  made 


19 

the  holy  garments  for  Aaron ;  as  the  Lord  com- 
manded Moses.  And  lie  made  the  ephod  of  gold, 
blue,  and  purple,  and  scarlet,  and  fine  twined  lin- 
en."    Exo.  xxxix.  1,  2. 

He  fared  sumptuously  every  day.  This  was 
eminently  true  of  Israel.  God  says,  "  thou  didst 
eat  fine  Hour,  and  honey,  and  oil ;  and  thou  wast 
exceeding  beautiful,  and  thou  didst  prosper  into  a 
kingdom."  The  rich  man's  land  flowed  with  milk 
and  honey.  He  fed  spiritually  upon  the  knowledge 
of  God,  and  upon  the  promises. 

By  Lazarus  the  beggar,  the  poor  Gentiles,  ex- 
cluded from  the  advantages  which  God's  covenant 
people  enjoyed,  are  represented.  Paul  details  the 
poverty  of  the  Gentiles.  "  At  that  time"  says  he, 
"  ye  tvere  ivithout  Christ,  being  aliens  from  the  com- 
momvealth  of  Israel,  and  strangers  from  the  coven- 
ants  of  promise,  having  no  hope,  and  without  God  in 
the  tvorld."  They  were  poor  indeed.  His  being 
"  full  of  sores,"  represented  the  moral  condition  of 
the  Gentiles.  By  the  death  of  the  beggar  is  rep- 
resented the  Gentiles'  release  from  their  idolatrous 
worship ;  and  his  being  carried  by  angels  into 
Abraham's  bosom,  represent  the  conversion  of  the 
Gentiles  to  the  faith  of  Abraham,  by  the  messen- 
gers of  God.  The  rich  man  died  politically.  He 
lost  his  riches,  his  purple  and  fine  linen,  his  gov- 
ernment, his  city,  and  his  existence  as  a  body  po- 
litic. He  was  buried.  His  goings  into  outer  dark- 
ness  is  justly  represented  by  being  buried.  He 
died  to  light,  and  went  into  darkness.  The  poor 
man  died  to  darkness  and  came  forth  to  light. — 
Hence  he  is  not  said  to  be  buried.  The  rich  man 
sees  Lazarus  in  Abraham's  bosom  ;  he  sees  fulfilled 
the  words  of  Christ,  "  There  shall  be  weeping  and 
gnashing  of  teeth,  when  ye  shall  see  Abraham,  and 
Isaac,  and  Jacob,  and  all  the  prophets  in  the  king- 
dom of  God,  and  you  yourselves  thrust  out.  And 
they  shall  come  from  the  east,  and  from  the  west, 
and  from  the  north,  and  from  the  south,  and  sludl 
sit  down  in  the  kingdom  of  God." 


20 

The  rich  man  calls  upon  Abraham,  whom  he  ad- 
dresses by  the  title  of  Father.  This  is  character- 
istic of  the  Jews.  Abraham  was  their  father  ;  and 
they  seemed  proud  of  their  progenitor.  Speak- 
ing to  our  Saviour,  they  said,  "  art  thou  greater 
than  our  father  Abraham  ? "  John  told  them, 
"  think  not  to  say  within  yourselves,  we  have 
Abraham  to  our  Father."  Yes,  they  would  be  in 
favor  with  Abraham.  They  have  disbelieved 
Jesus;  they  have  abused  their  privileges  ;  they 
have  relied  upon  their  national  greatness,  and  the 
glory  of  their  ancestors.  When  in  distress  they 
turned  to  Abraham  for  mercy.  But  their  national 
greatness  is  gone,  and  the  glory  of  tlieir  ancestors 
can  afford  then  no  relief.  Abraham  is  represent- 
ed as  recognizing  the  relationship.  He  refers  the 
rich  man  to  his  former  condition,  as  well  as  to  that 
of  the  beggar,  and  seems  to  give  this  as  a  reason 
why  the  former  was  tormented  and  the  latter  bless- 
ed. This  is  according  to  the  equality  of  God's 
ways.  The  Jews  had  possessed  a  knowledge  of 
God,  and  been  blessed  for  a  long  time,  while  the 
Gentiles  had  been  without  hope,  and  without  God 
in  the  world.  Now  the  scene  is  reversed  accord- 
ing to  the  appointment  of  God.  "  It  was  necessa- 
ry," said  the  apostles  to  them,  "  that  the  word  of 
god  should  first  have  been  spoken  to  you  :  but  see- 
ing ye  put  it  from  you,  and  judge  yourselves  un- 
worthy of  everlasting  life,  lo,  we  turn  to  the  Gen- 
tiles. For  so  hath  the  Lord  commanded  us,  saying, 
I  have  set  thee  to  be  a  light  of  the  Gentiles,  that 
thou  shouldst  be  for  salvation  unto  the  ends  of  the 
earth." 

The  gulf  which  separated  the  rich  man  from 
Lazarus,  very  well  represents  any  circumstance  by 
which  the  Jews  are  separated  from  the  Gentile  na- 
tions. That  such  a  separation  has  long  existed,  ad- 
mits not  of  a  doubt  ;  and  when  we  reflect  that,  al- 
though many  centuries  have  passed  away  since  the 
Jews  forfeited  their  national  character,  they  have 
never  become  mixed  and  lost  among  other  nations, 


21 

we  can  but  recognize  some  manifest  design  of  prov- 
idence in  the  event.  By  this  gulf  we  may  also  un- 
derstand that  purpose  of  God,  in  which  it  is  deter- 
mined by  infinite  wisdom,  that  the  JeAvs  shall  not 
believe  the  Gospel  until  the  lulness  of  the  Gentiles 
be  come  in.  This  was  the  subject  of  prophecy. 
Isaiah  says,  "  who  hath  believed  our  report  ?  " 
And  John  applies  this  to  the  unbelief  of  the  Jews 
in  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus.  John  says,  "  there- 
fore they  could  not  believe,  because  that  Esaias 
said  again.  He  hath  blinded  their  eyes,  and  harden- 
ed their  heart,  that  they  should  not  see  Avith  their 
eyes,  and  understand  with  their  heart,  and  be  con- 
verted, and  I  should  heal  them."  John  xii.  38 — 40. 
Matt.  xiii.  14,  15.  Mark  iv.  11,  12.  Luke  viii. 
10.  Acts  xxviii.  26—28.  Rom.  xi.  8.  The  divine 
purpose  in  this,  is  consistent  with  God's  impartial 
character.  This  blindness  of  the  JeAVs  is  to  bring 
about  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles,  through 
Avhose  mercy  the  JeAVs  Avill  at  last  obtain  mercy, 
Paul,  addressing  one  of  the  Gentile  churches,  says, 
"  For  as  ye  in  times  past  have  not  believed  God, 
yet  have  now  obtained  mercy  through  their  unbe- 
lief ;  even  so  have  these  also  noAV  not  believed, 
that  through  your  mercy  they  also  may  obtain  mer- 
cy." Rom.  xi.  30,  31.  Of  the  unbelief  of  the 
JeAvs,  the  prophets  had  prophesied.  When  the 
Gentiles  saAv  the  prophesies  fulfilled  in  the  obsti- 
nacy of  the  JeAVS,  they  Avere  convinced  of  the  di- 
vine origin  of  Christianity  ;  they  pressed  into  the 
kingdom  of  God.  By  the  mercy  of  the  Gentiles 
the  JeAVS  are  at  last  to  obtain  mercy.  Paul  says, 
"  For  I  Avould  not,  brethren,  that  ye  should  be  ig- 
norant of  this  mystery,  (lest  ye  should  be  Avise  in 
your  OAvn  conceits)  that  blindness  in  part  is  hap- 
pened to  Israel,  until  the  fulness  of  the  Gentiles  be 
come  in.  And  so  all  Israel  shall  be  saved  ;  as 
it  is  Avritten,  there  shall  come  out  of  Zion  the  de- 
liverer, and  shall  turn  aAvay  ungodliness  from  Ja- 
cob." Rom.  xi.  25,  20.  Although  the  Jcavs  are 
now  shut  out  of  the  kingdom,  Ave  can  easily   per- 


22 

ceive  they  are  finally  to  be  brought  in.  Jesus  said 
unto  them,  "  ye  shall  not  see  me  henceforth,  till  ye 
shall  say,  Blessed  is  he  that  cometh  in  the  name  of 
the  Lord."  When  they  will  say  this,  we  are  not 
yet  permitted  to  know  ;  but  no  one  who  believes 
the  divine  testimony  can  doubt  that  they  will  at  a 
proper  time.  The  benefit  derived  from  the  gulf, 
will  then  be  obtained,  and  Jews  and  Gentiles  will 
rejoice  together  in  the  fruition  of  eternal  life. 

I  have  now  given  you  my  views  of  the  text, 
with  the  evidence  which  induced  me  to  adopt  them. 
Judge  for  yourselves,  my  hearers.  Let  not  popu- 
larity nor  proscription  influence  you.  Be  not  ter- 
rified by  the  threatening  of  endless  woe.  You 
can  form  the  best  judgment  while  you  are  dispas- 
sionate and  calm.  Treat  your  religious  opposers 
with  tenderness  and  love,  yet  maintain  the  inde- 
pendence and  faithfulness  of  Christians. 

The  way  in  which  we  have  explained  the  text, 
appears  consistent  Avith  the  character  of  God  as  the 
Father  and  friend  of  mankind ;  and  it  leads  us 
clear  of  those  difficulties  with  which  those  meet, 
Avho  use  the  text  to  prove  the  unmerciful  doctrine 
of  eternal  and  infinite  misery.  But  notwithstand- 
ing the  explanation  I  have  given  accords  with  the 
very  best  feelings  of  your  hearts,  I  would  caution 
you  not  to  receive  it,  if  you  are  not  convinced  of 
its  truth  by  the  force  of  evidence.  Rest  your  faith 
on  the  Bible  only.  Examine  this  with  freedom 
and  care  ;  and  God  will  bless  your  exertions  to  the 
promotion  of  your  spiritual  welfare. 


NOTE  A. 
Thcophylact.from  whose  Commentary  on  tlio  Four  Gospels  the  follow- 
iiig  extract  was  made,  lived  in  the  eleventh  century,  and  was  Metropoli- 
tan of  Bulgaria.  He  certainly  was  not  an  Univcrsalisl;  yet  he  considered 
it  by  no  means  as  doing  injustice  to  the  parable,  to  sxplain  it  as  wo  have 
done.     Here  follows  the  extract  : 

"  In  the  preceding  verses,  our  Lord  had  taught  us  to  conduct  ourselves 
nroperly  with  regard  to  our  riches  ;  and  to  the  same  purpose,  he  adds,  by 
way  of  example,  this  Parable.  For  this  is  a  Parable,  and  not,  as  some 
have  thought,  a  history;  because  that  the  blessings  of  eternity  were  not  yet 
adiudged  to  the  righteous,  nor  the  judgments  to  the  wicked.  But  our  l-orU 
spake  fi<Turatively,  designing  to  teach  the  unmerciful  what  was  at  engtli 
to  come  upon  them,  and  on  the  other  hand,  to  assure  the  afflicted  how 
hap  py  they  are  to  become,  for  the  evils  they  here  sustain."  Accordingly, 
Theophylact  proceeds  to  apply  this  Parable,  as  a  representation  ol  the  dil- 
fercnt  conditions  of  the  proud  sinner  and  of  the  humble  saint,  alter  tlio 
general  Judgment  ;  and  he  incidentally  reasons  from  the  Parable,  against 
Ori^en's  doctrine  of  the  restoration,  because  Abraham  says,  "that  they 
whfch  would  pass  from  hence  to  you,  cannot,  neither  can  they  pass  to  us 
that  would  come  from  thence." 

At  last,  howcvor,  Theophylact  says,  "  But  this  Parable  can  also  be  ex- 
plained in  the  way  of  Allegory  ;  so  that  we  may  say  that  by  the  Rich  man 
is  si.Jnif.ed  the  Jewish  people.     For  they  were    formerly    rich,   aboundmg 
in  all  divine  knowledge,  wisdom  and  instruction,  which  are  more  excellent 
than  gold  and  precious  stones.     And  they  were  arrayed  in  purple  and  hne 
linen,  as  they  possesseda  kingdom,  and  a  priesthood,  and  were  themselves 
a  royal  priesthood  to  God.     The  purple  denoted  their  kingdom  ;  and    the 
fine  "linen,  their  priesthood.     For  the  Levites  were  clothed   m   sacerdotal 
vestments  of  fine  linen  ;  and  they  fed  sumptuously  and  lived   splendidly, 
every  day.     Uaily  did  they  onbr  the  morning  and  the  evening  sacnlice  ; 
which  they  also  called  the  continual  sacrifice.     But  Lazarus  was  the  Gen- 
tile people  :  poor  in  divine  grace  and  wisdom,  and  lying  betore  the  gates  ; 
for  it  was  not  permitted  to  the  Gentiles  to  enter  the  house  itsell,   because 
they  were  considered  a  pollution.     Thus,  in   the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  we 
read  that  it  was  alleged  against  Paul  that  ho  had  introduced  Gentiles  into 
the  temple,  and  made  that  holy  place   common   or  unclean.       Moreover, 
those  people  were  full  of  fetid  sores  of  sin,  on  which   the  impudent   dogs, 
or  devils,  fed,  who  delight  themselves  in  our  sores.     The  Gentiles  likewise 
desired  even  the  crumbs  which  fell  from  the  table  of  the  Rich  ;    for  they 
were  wholly  destitute  of  that  bread  which  strengthens  the  heart  ol  man, 
and  wanted  even  the  smallest  morsel  of  food  ;  so  that  the  Canaamte  wo- 
man (Matt.  XV.  27,)  when  she  was  a  heathen,  desired  to    be  led  with  the 
crumbs.     In  short  :  the  Hebrew  people  were  dead    unto   God,   and   their 
bones,  which  could  not  be  moved  to  do  good,  were  perished.     Lazarus  al- 
so, I  mean  the  Gentile  people,  was  dead  in  sin.     And  the  envious  Jews,  who 
were  dead  in  sins,  did  actually  burn  in  a   fiamc  of  jealousy,  as   saith   the 
Apostle,  on  account  of  the  Gentiles  being  received  into  the  faith,  and  be- 
cause that  those  who  had  before    been  a   poor  and  despised  Geiilic  race, 
were  now  in  the  bosom  of  Abraham,    the  father   of  nations.     And  justly, 
indeed,  were  they  thus  received.     For  it    was    while  Abraham  was  yet  a 
Gentile,  that  he  believed  God,  and  turned  from  the  worship  ol  idols  to  tlic 
knowledge  of  God.     Therefore,  it  was  proper  that  they  who  were  partak- 
ers of  his  conversion  and  faith,  should  rest  in  his  bosom,  sharing  the  same 
final  lot,  the  same  habitation  and  the  same  blessedness.     And  the   Jewish 


people  longed  for  one  drop  of  the  former  legal  sprinklings  and  purifica- 
tions to  refresh  their  tongue,  that  they  might  confidently  say  to  ua  that 
the  Law  was  still  efficacious  and  availing.  But  it  was  not.  For  the  Law 
was  only  until  John.  And  the  Psalmist  says,  sacrifice  and  oblations 
thou  wouldst  not,  &c."  ^ 

Theophylact  then  briefly  observes,  that  we  ought  to  make  a  moral  uso 
of  this  Parable,  and  not  despise  our  servants  who  stand  at  our  gales. 

Theophylacti  in  Quatuor  Evangdia  Enarrationes,  p. 119.  Edit.  Basil, 
1525. 


NOTE  B. 

We  may  add  the  testimony  of  another  writer,  who,  we  suppose,  was  not 
an  Universalist,  to  the  correctness.of  the  views  we  have  advanced.  We 
extract  the  following  from  a  work  entitled  a  "Rationale  of  the  Litteral  doc- 
trine of  Original  Sin,  &c.     By  James  Bate,  M.  A.  Rector  of  Deptford." 

"  We  will  suppose,  then,  the  rich  man  ivho  fared  so  stimptuoiisly,  to  be 
the  Jew  ;  so  amply  enriched  with  the  heavenly  treasure  of  (iivine  revelation. 
The  poor  beggar,  u'ho  lay  at  his  gate,  in  so  miserable  a  plight,  was  the  poor 
Gentile ;  now  reduced  to  the  last  degree  of  want  in  regard  to  religious 
knowledge.  TTie  crumbs  which  fell  from  the  rich  man's  table,  and  which  the 
befgar  was  so  rfesiVous  of  picking  up,  were  such  fragments  of  patriarchal 
and  Jewish  traditions,  as  their  travelling  philosophers  were  able  to  pick  up, 
with  their  utmost  care  and  dilligence.  And  tjiose  philosophers  were  also 
the  dogs  that  licked  the  sores  of  heathenism,  and  endeavoured  to  supply  the 
wants  of  divine  revelalion,  by  such  schemes  and  hypotheses  concerning  the 
nature  of  the  gods,  and  the  obligation  of  moral  duties,  as  (due  allowance 
made  for  their  ignorance  and  frailties)  did  no  small  honor  to  human  nature, 
and  yet  thereby  plainly  shewed,  how  little  a  way  unassisted  reason  could  go, 
without  some  supernatural  help  :  as  one  of  the  wisest  of  them  frankly  con- 
fessed. About  one  and  the  same  time,  ttie  beggar  dies,  and  is  carried  by  the 
angels  (i.  e.  God's  spiritual  messengers  to  mankind)  into  Abrahafii's  bosom  ; 
that  is,  he  is  engrafted  in  to  the  church  of  God.  And  the  rich  man  also  dies 
and  is  buried,  lie  dies  what  we  call  a  political  death.  His  dispensation 
ceases.  He  is  rejected  from  being  any  longer  tlie  peculiar  son  of  God — 
The  people  whom  ho  parabolically  represents,  are  miserably  destroyed  by  the 
Romans,  and  the  wretched  remains  of  them  driven  in  to  exile  over  the  face 
of  the  earth  :  mere  vagabonds,  with  a  kind  of  mark  set  upon  them,  like  Cain 
their  prototype,  for  a  like  .crime  ;  and  which  mark  may  perhaps  be— their 
adherence  to  the  law.  Whereby  it  came  amazingly  to  pass,  that  these  peo- 
ple, though  dispersed,  yet  still  dwell  alone  and  separate  ;  7>ot  being  reckoned 
among  the  nations,  as"  Balaam  foretold.  The  rich  man  being  reduced  lo 
this  state  of  misery,  complains  bitterly  of  his  hard  fate  ;  but  is  told  by  Abra- 
ham, that  he  slipped  his  opportunity.  While  Lazarus  laid  hold  on  his,  and 
now  receives  the  comfort  of  it.  The  Jew  complains  of  the  want  of  more 
evidence,  to  convince  his  countrymen,  the  five  brethren:  and  would  fain 
have  Lazarus  sent  from  the  dead  to  convert  thorn.  But  Abraham  tells  him, 
that  if  their  own  scriptures  cannot  convince  them  of  their  eiTor,  iieithcr 
would  thfy  be  persuaded  though  one  rose  from  the  dead.  And  exactly  bo  it 
proved  in  the  event.  For,  this  parable  was  delivered  towards  the  end  of  the 
tliird  year  of  our  Lord's  rninistr'  ;  and  in  the  fourlh,  or  following  year  of  it, 
the  words  put  in  to  the  mouth  of  ,\.braham,  as  the  conclusion  of  the  parable, 
are  most  literally  verified,  by  our  iiord's  raising  another  Lazarus  from  the 
dead.  And  we  may  presume  that  tho  beggar  had  the  fictitious  name  of 
Lazarus  given  him  in  tlio  parable,  not  without  some  reason.  Since  tho  sup- 
posed request  of  the  rich  man,  was  fully  answered,  by  our  Lord's  raising 
another,  and  a  real  Lazarus,  from  the  dead.  But  what  was  the  consetjuencc  .' 
Did  this  notorious  miracle  convince  the  rich  man's  brethren  ?  No,  truly. — 
His  visit  to  them  from  the  dead,  was  so  far  from  convincinglhcm,  that  they 
actually  consulted  together,  that  Ihet/ might  put  Lazarus  also  to  death  ;  be- 
cause that  byreason  of  him,ma.ny  of  the  Jews  went  awa;/ and  believed  on 
Jesus.     So  mucli  for  the  true  sense  of  this  parable." 


